tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post116465475429226319..comments2013-01-11T17:55:51.015-05:00Comments on Sentient Developments: Kramnik blunders, loses Game 2!Georgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13003484633933455827noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-77788837255848053332007-05-13T18:51:00.000-04:002007-05-13T18:51:00.000-04:00Domin8 MySpace with myspace proxies.Domin8 MySpace with <A HREF="http://www.domin8myspace.com" REL="nofollow"> myspace proxies</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-23670670641982278512007-05-07T21:13:00.000-04:002007-05-07T21:13:00.000-04:00Domin8 MySpace with unique myspace music. Check o...Domin8 MySpace with unique <A HREF="www.domin8myspace.com" REL="nofollow"> myspace music</A>. Check out www.domin8myspace.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-1164685805426171512006-11-27T22:50:00.000-05:002006-11-27T22:50:00.000-05:00BTW, has anybody else noticed that chess is, in a ...BTW, has anybody else noticed that chess is, in a sense, like glorified tic-tac-toe? Two competent players can play to an endless series of draws in tic-tac-toe. You have to go out of your way to screw up in order to lose.<BR/><BR/>Of course, chess is far more complex. While there are precisely 765 unique positions in tic-tac-toe, there are ~10^118 game trees for chess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number). That means there are way more possibilities for error, which is why we "normal" players will eventually screw up leading to one clear winner.<BR/><BR/>However, two exceptional players can essentially steer the course of the game to avoid most errors so that a large number of draws result. Anyway, in that sense, it's like glorified tic-tac-toe.<BR/><BR/>BTW, does that observation imply that we are reaching the theoretical limits of chess expertise? IE, if all (or all major) errors can be avoided, then the best you can hope for between two superlative players is an infinite series of ties. Maybe chess ratings don't just scale up forever. Maybe somewhere around 3000 is the theoretical limit, because two players with a rating of 3000 would never or extremely rarely screw up in a way that could lead to a clear winner.<BR/><BR/>So maybe there won't ever be a day when machines destroy even the best humans in chess every time.<BR/><BR/>Just a thought.Martin Strizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08271512993568220832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-1164684975385686752006-11-27T22:36:00.000-05:002006-11-27T22:36:00.000-05:00So AIs can consistently play even with the best ch...So AIs can consistently play even with the best chess players in the world. Now all I need is an AI smart enough to check my groceries out without constantly pestering me to re-scan stuff that I've already scanned. :)<BR/><BR/>False positives are a bitch.Martin Strizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08271512993568220832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-1164656947355080442006-11-27T14:49:00.000-05:002006-11-27T14:49:00.000-05:00lol@ human error.lol@ human error.Michael Anissimovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14055672876870894824noreply@blogger.com